I take personal responsibility for my child’s safety and education and the safety and education of the children in this community.

* I pledge to volunteer a minimum of five hours of my time to my public schools each semester. * I pledge to spend a minimum of fifteen minutes each school night reading with my child or we will work together on homework and enrichment activity.

Posted at 04:04:31 PM

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

--Wendy C: & Zorn:

Wendy – you teach. Zorn – you will be having two children in a run of the mill Chicago high school. Because of your situations – I value your insights in the following matter.

I imagine even in a poor public school – it is only a minority of the students who are unmotivated. However, these bad apples can do a lot to ruin it for the motivated students. AM I CORRECT?

Thus what is a parent to do if he learns that these bad apples in his child’s classroom are ruining it for his child?

ZORN REPLY -- I wouldn't say my kids are going to "run of the mill" schools next fall by any means. But/and yes, bad apples can be a hellish problem for schools and you can find them anywhere.

As far as the Indiana pledge, great. By signing them at least parents can't claim ignorance of what the school demands. But If parents need their responsibilities spelled out for them its already to late. As for Uno, at least they have some leverage.I would guess the problem of disruptive students ranks very high on the list of reasons the high turnover rate in the teaching profession.

'However, these bad apples can do a lot to ruin it for the motivated students. AM I CORRECT?"

Bad apples can be a distraction due to behavior reasons, but they are a small though vocal problem. I'm more concerned about the unmotivated students, the ones that sit in class and basically do nothing, don't absorb the lessons, won't follow through on assignments. They fall behind early in their schooling, by the time they get to high school, they may be years behind their peers. Often, in order to try catching them up, teachers are encouraged to 'dumb down' the curriculum by administrators worried about failure rates. This presents great harm to the academically successful students, as they are offered material not up to the standards schools in better districts maintain.

I work exclusively with special ed students with behavior problems, many bad apples can't tolerate the regular ed classrooms due to various learning and mental disabilities, so they're mine. But, what my colleagues in regular ed tell me, it's very frustrating trying to teach students who don't care or don't take education seriously. Part of the problem is we've enabled these students for years through social promotion. We have not held them or their parents responsible for negative behaviors that have led to poor study habits, so it's partly our fault. But, these decisions are controlled by the administration, teachers just get the blame.

Starting next year, students doing poorly in core academics, specifically focusing on reading and math, will be forced to take double block classes in these areas, forcing a loss of some electives. They will also have to take extended school year courses over the summer in elementary and middle schools. We were told by our principal just last week over 50% of our incoming Freshman (about 1200 students) are at or below 5th grade reading levels (we have over 70% Hispanic, part of the reason), and we must get their scores up. Unless our district turns to alternative education, we are in for a hard ride. Not every child is bound for college. (By the way, parent response and involvement is currently around 10%, I'll bet you can guess which students are their children.)

Jerry: "The last I remember is that you posted that your twins could not get into a CPS magnet school and thus they were going to a standard issue CPS school."

You must have not followed up reading that thread for EZ's answer to my assumption about the results--he only said that neither got into their first choice and that they were going to 2 schools. And that the outcome may have been different had they lived in a different neighborhood. EZ, iirc, confirmed that they would NOT be attending the neighborhood program at their attendance area HS and, for obvious reasons, didn't go further. I have educated guesses (just from understanding the CPS process and options) as to the results, but won't share them, again for obvious reasons. Suffice to say that *most* kids/parents would be pleased with the options they received--sort of on the order of getting into big ten schools rather than one of Stanford/Harvard/Princeton.

ZORN REPLY -- That's a fair summation. I'd add only that they both worked awfully hard for those admissions.

I don't know what kind of constituency this United Neighborhood Organization serves, or purports to, but some of the things in their "contract" don't seem very sympathetic toward single parents, especially ones without a lot of money. These people are likely to have the kind of jobs where "coming to school, if requested, to attend to my child's needs" can get you fired.

[ZORN REPLY -- That's a fair summation. I'd add only that they both worked awfully hard for those admissions.]

Am I to infer that parental clout had nothing to do with it?

I use "clout" in a broad sense.

ZORN REPLY -- The process is all by the numbers -- grades and test scores -- and the standards are published and adhered to. Even the second round, where principals have discretion, is carefully monitored to block any form of clout or influence (and, for the record, my daughter did NOT get a principal's discretion position she applied for, so...)

I do NOT blame Zorn for being vague. However, is or is not Zorn a hypocrite? I presume nothing bad until I have evidence to the contrary.

If you know the CPS system – just speak generally – not about Zorn or his family."

Okay, it's a little tough to be specific and vague, because there is such a narrow band of schools/programs that fit the bill. But I'll try (note we are several years away from kids entering HS, so this is untainted with the knowledge OR bias that comes with direct experience):

So, the schools everyone talks about are Northside, Payton, Young--the big 3--which are the toughest to get into. But, for any kid who doesn't quite make the cut, there are a number of other *good* alternatives to the neighborhood high school.

Focusing on places that are more likely to appeal to kids/parents who live on the N or NW side (as EZ and I do--tho I'm not in his hood) Jones and Lane are right behind the Big 3, and admission is thru the same selective enrollment system as the Big 3. There are also King, Brooks, Westinghouse and Lindbloom with the same admissions system, but 3 are on the mid to far south side and the 4th is right next to the old Westinghouse on the westside, so there are location issues for "typical" northside kids and parents.

Through a different admissions system, Taft and Lincoln Park both have IB programs. LPHS also has a "double honors" program that draws kids from outside its attendance area. Von Stueben is a magnet HS with it's own admissions criteria, too--there are three other magnet HSs on the west and southwest sides, as well, each too far from EZ's area to be practical alternatives, tho.

Then there are a number of new, small HSs associated with "successful" elementary schools on the northside--Ogden, Alcott, Audubon to start--which are designed to be automatic alternatives for kids coming from the associated 8th grade, but open to application beyond that to fill out the classes.

Finally, there are the various charter schools. This is enough of a moving target, in various ways, and we're far enough away that I don't have much of a handle on specifics.

So, there are a significant number of potential CPS alternatives to one's attendance area HS beyond the ones that get all the attention in the media. While EZ's kids didn't get into whichever of the Big 3 they wanted, I never got the impression (and EZ has now twice confirmed) that they are also not going to whichever of Shurz/Roosevely/Mather is their attendance area school (I have a general idea of where EZ lives, but not enough to narrow beyond among those three). And, like I said, based on what he's written about it, I have a strong hunch about both the categories above and the actual specifics, but (1) it's just a hunch, and (2) given EZ's expressed desire for their privacy, I don't want to broach even the categories.

Oh, yeah, on this question, I'm not sure what would qualify him as a hypocrite in your eyes. If you give a sense of what your issue is, I can give my assessment based on my hunches, but it will also (most likely) come with an explanation why I don't think that it is objectively hypocritical.

I just want to know at what age do these pledges stop? There are simply thngs I'm not willing to take responsibility for for my high school kid (and possibly not even middle school). I'm certainly available to help with homework at any age if requested, but at some point it's up to my kid to do it or not without my intervention, and to take the consequences either way.

Parents who raise their children with a love and respect for education don't have to worry about their children by the time they reach the upper grades. It's the parents that view teachers as no more than higher paid babysitters that have the children with the most problems by the time they reach high school. In our district, there's not much you can achieve with parents like these. They refuse to work with the district or their children and don't even answer our calls.

The worse problem we face in our district is our Hispanic families, many of these students live in homes where English is never spoken. How do we expect parents to read with their children when they don't even know the language?

Zorn is a steadfast opponent of vouchers. He has extensively posted his opposition to vouchers. I infer from his postings that his opposition boils down to two categories of objection:

1) Zorn claims a voucher system would somehow siphon needed money away from the CPS. I concede that there might be some short term inefficiencies which might be greatly mitigated by a gradual implementation. But in the long run – that should not be a problem.

2) Second Zorn says that the better students and their better parents would be siphoned away from the poor schools – making them even poorer. By “better” I include the smart motivated student as well as the merely motivated student.

If “hypocritical” is too strong a word, then use “inconsistent.”

At this point I presume that Zorn did nothing “hypocritical.” However, I think it fair to say that the typical run-of-the-mill CPS high school and its students would have greatly benefited from the presence of the Zorn children and the Zorn parents. Now they are deprived of that presence.

I will add that no parent should be forced to sacrifice his family for the benefit of other children. That is why I favor vouchers. I would surely have acted as Zorn in trying to get my kids into the best school possible.

The real tragedy is that dedicated parents like Eric have to go through so many hoops to get their children into a decent high school.

However, Eric is indeed lucky that Chicago offers magnet schools which essentially separate students who are motivated from those who are not. He would be out of luck if this were the CPS of my and JerryB's youths.

So CPS runs two school systems and, by all accounts, the intellectually and/or economically segregated one is quite good. Guess which one the lake front liberals use? The real question is, given that demand for these segregated schools is so high, why doesn't CPS expand their number?

That is typical of all state controlled bureaucracies that hand out goods and services.
Zorn has recounted in the past all the hoops his family has had to jump through to get the best education possible for his children.

But in a capitalistic market system if there is a demand backed by dollars – the supply will spring up in short order. That is how the U.S. college system works.

We are saved from the horror of having to continuously petition/beg our elected and non- elected officials for goods and services.

Now we are hoping that our new messiah – the new major – will fix things. Well I will tell you how a bad restaurant is very quickly fixed – the would-be customers take their dollars elsewhere. No need for public hearings, remediation plans, etc.

The one mantra we hear again and again from liberals/progressives is that we should all be in the same boat. However – in practice – they like the rest of us -- will jump to the best boat possible.

The more and more I read this liberal/progressive blog the more I come to believe that liberals/progressive are either masochistic fools or wretched with envy.

--"Or better yet, just send a check to the parents and let them choose the school they want to send their kids to?"

Which would result in essentially what we have today, but with an added layer, and (likely) fewer smart, poor kids going to the "best" schools. Assuming full-voucherization:

1. The kids whose parents don't/can't care send their kids to the neighborhood school, no matter how "bad" it is, just like now.

2. The kids whose parents' care, but don't have the resources to pay a dime beyond the voucher, and no group affinity that provides an alternative method to supplemental cash payment, compete for city magnets and charter schools that accept the voucher as full tuition.

3. The kids with parents who have some extra resources go to "cheap" privates, which are either "new" charters who require some supplement to the voucher or parochial schools. Note that *much* of this group already chooses this route, especially at HS.

4. The kids with parents with *ample* resources go to existing or new (there would be many) high dollar private schools, using the voucher to defray the cost of their choice. These high buck schools would *likely* admit somewhat more "scholarship" kids, as the addition of ~4 paying $0 beyond the voucher would come with full tuition for one of them via the vouchers, reducing "scholarship" costs by ~25%.

I don't see how this does much in a school system that has a *ton* of charter school and will have more (more charters is one of Rahm's CPS missions) without making transfer payments to the likes of Latin and Parker parents who already are willing to pay $25k/year to opt out of CPS.

Look – I have always treated you respectfully and have taken you seriously. As shown above, your following comment is not true:

[JerryB said—“The one mantra we hear again and again from liberals/progressives is that we should all be in the same boat." Who? And don't just name 4 people who post here. That's as sensible as naming 4 "conservatives" and ascribing that view to "conservatives/republicans".]

I am a moderate conservative. I find conservative echo chambers boring. That is why I post on Chicago’s leading liberal/progressive blog. I know what makes conservative tick. I want to learn what makes liberals/progressives tick. That is interesting – not an exercise in masochism. What is wrong with that?

It is sad that you have to caricature the voucher position of MCN and myself.

To continue with the boat metaphor – we are offering everyone money (vouchers) to buy better boats. And as our capitalistic market system has shown – if the demand (backed by money) is there – the supply will soon follow.

In the middle and long runs things almost always work more efficiently and total satisfaction is increased when we have many suppliers and many consumers able to vote with their dollars. That is market capitalism.

I just do not see why education would work better as part of a government monopoly. Look at the hoops the Zorns have had to jump through to run after the limited number of quality CPS schools.

"Look – I have always treated you respectfully and have taken you seriously. As shown above, your following comment is not true:"

Okay, so by "liberal/progressive" you mean "Eric Zorn". Fine. I don't have any reason at all to disagree with your characterization of Zorn, his blog, the Tribune or their individual and collective relationships with Chicago and individual liberal/progressive viewpoints..

That said, do you really think that saying "liberal/progressive" when you mean Zorn is any different than lefties saying "conservative/republican" when they mean Limbaugh, or Beck, or Coulter, or whoever?

You gave the impression (in this thread, maybe never before, I dunno) that you think those views are those of liberals as a group, but you come to that conclusion based on--apparently, and please correct if needed--what EZ writes. I think that saying that what any one of those "conservative" paid entertainers writes/says is *THE* conservative viewpoint is being overly narrow and comes across as partisan. And vice versa.

"I want to learn what makes liberals/progressives tick. That is interesting – not an exercise in masochism. What is wrong with that?"

Nothing, *but* I was using *your* words. I wouldn't describe someone as a "masochistic fool", but you--in your own words--are "com[ing] to believe that liberals/progressive are either masochistic fools or wretched with envy"? Is that actually what you think "makes liberals (or just EZ) tick"? Really?

And, if not, do you think that making such a statement is going to be probative about what "makes liberals (or just EZ) tick"? Or was it just popped off to be mildly inflammatory?

If poor but motivated students have vouchers they can more easily become “haves.”

The “bad apples” in the classroom prevent teachers from teaching effectively. If teachers can teach effectively – learning is more likely to be fun. And most students will always be motivated to have “fun.”

We can always house the recalcitrant “bad apples” in reform schools – and then prisons – if need be.

"I just do not see why education would work better as part of a government monopoly."

It's not a monopoly. Not even close. *never* has been, either. You could start a school tomorrow, Jerry, and CPS wouldn't have any power to shut you down.

--Do you know how many charter/contract schools there are in CPS *right now*?

89. Out of 665 total CPS schools. And Rahm wants to *dramatically* expand the number of charter schools.

--What's the difference between having lots of charter schools and giving everyone vouchers?

The people who would send their kids to private school, anyway, and just pay the freight don't get to take $$ out of the system. A robust charter school system is *very close* to providing vouchers for those who opt to use a charter school--they're run by non-CPS organizations, they are in competition with each other, and if they don't do a good enough job, kids and parents vote with their feet and they have to close.

Really, calling for universal vouchers rather than more charters comes across (or may, in fact, be) a call for the wealthy--who *already* don't send their kids to public school--to be able to (at least partly) opt out of funding public schools.

I concede your point that I treat Zorn and his regular and semi-regular left of center posters as representative of liberal/progressive thought generally. I do so as a necessary convenience. I do not have the time to sample everything.

When I sample other mainstream liberal/progressive pundits either through REALCLEARPOLITCS or through Public Television – I have almost always found Zorn to be a consistent representative of that POV.

I have never found Zorn to be a nut or an extremist. I have also found him to be intellectually honest. He does not posture with a liberal shtick in the way Limbaugh postures with a conservative shtick.

As a general matter I honestly find liberals to be foolishly masochistic and wretchedly envious. There is nothing wrong with characterizing a group by its central tendencies – you know – on a bell curve. That is what political pollsters do for a living. I concede that to say this is provocative.

I will concede that you know a lot more about the Chicago Charter School system than I do. Perhaps you a correct when you say:

[A robust charter school system is *very close* to providing vouchers for those who opt to use a charter school--they're run by non-CPS organizations, they are in competition with each other, and if they don't do a good enough job, kids and parents vote with their feet and they have to close.]

It is my general understanding that both locally and nationally CHARTER SCHOOLS still have more restrictions than truly private or parochial schools.

The major restriction that I gripe about is they are restricted from siphoning off just the better students. (Better in terms of smarts, motivation, and behavior.)They can not cherry pick their students. I believe this to be true for the New Orleans system and the Milwaukee system. Is this also true for Chicago?

It is also more difficult for them to kick out bad students. They fear facing the charge of de facto cherry picking through the back door what they can not achieve through the front door.

Crap! It should have been in the disjunctive: “I honestly find liberals to be foolishly masochistic [or] wretchedly envious" Originally it was in the disjunctive. My mistake came from posting too quickly. Thanks for the catch.

To answer your question. They are envious of those with more money or more earning capacity. Those that did not apply themselves in college or failed to choose high paying majors are envious of those who did.

Most of us are descendents of poor immigrants. The immigrant philosophy was if one wanted more he should work harder and/or smarter. They considered soaking the rich a Bolshevik idea.

For the sake of intellectual honesty I also note pro-union sentiments among the immigrants – but a discussion of that would bring us too far a field.

"It is my general understanding that both locally and nationally CHARTER SCHOOLS still have more restrictions than truly private or parochial schools."

Sure, of course they do. The biggest restriction being that they can't charge *any* additional tuition. And then there are more curriculum standards and stricter non-discrimination polices, etc, etc. Many (most?) CPS charters have some admissions standards, and they vary. Some (many?) are totally open enrollment. Dunno the break down or a fast way to find out (could do it the hard way and go thru the school descriptions, but I won't).

I'd be fully in support of total voucherization *IF* there were also a requirement that whoever qualified for admission to any school under their published standards must be allowed to attend for the voucher amount and not $1 more. That will *never* *ever* *ever* happen. And, frankly, it shouldn't.

But, until the kid from Englewood/Back of the Yards/Hegewisch who is smart enough to be the median kid at Parker (or Latin or Lab or Ignatius or wherever) can go there w/o any additional cost above a voucher (and 3 hours a day of CTA time), your belief in the *obvious* social mobility benefits are a little strained.

What's the explanation for the anti-"intellectual"-ism of much of the conservative side?

Oh, and I forgot to respond to this:

"The major restriction that I gripe about is they are restricted from siphoning off just the better students."

So, your problem is largely with the disappearance of "tracking"? Yeah, that *was* misguided hippie-dippy crap from the 70s, that turned into bedrock principle. It was, however, based in part on some districts attempts to work around Brown v Bd of Ed. Taking too far, no doubt, and something that has been significantly relaxed, as the whole selective enrollment thing demonstrates.

We might be talking past one another. We might be reaching some agreement. Both are simultaneously possible.

I have no problem with a system comprised of traditional public schools, charter schools, private schools, and parochial schools all accompanied by vouchers or some equivalent proxy.

If you read everything that I have posted on this thread – my biggest gripe is that the bad apples drag down others in the classroom. The bad apples are those with behavioral problems.

My next biggest gripe is unmotivated students dragging down others in the classroom.

Another gripe is the dumbing down of instruction to the detriment of the bright students. I note many schools want to eliminate honors classes and the attendant intellectual segregation. Evanston Township H. S. -- which spends a lot per pupil -- is doing away with some honors classes for incoming freshmen.

Of course no school should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.
But same sex schools and the ability of schools to selectively enroll students is OK with me.

I do not understand your argument that a smart child in the worst of schools has to be able to get into the best of schools. It is fine with me if he is merely able to get into a much better school. Let’s not have the “perfect” be the enemy of the “good."

"My next biggest gripe is unmotivated students dragging down others in the classroom."

I have frequently in my life been *the* most unmotivated student in a classroom. It's only disruptive if the teacher allows it to be by, for example, spending a lot of time trying to catch said unmotivated kid asleep during an in-class movie, or if the kid is also something of a bad apple.

"I do not understand your argument that a smart child in the worst of schools has to be able to get into the best of schools."

My point there is that vouchers aren't about upward mobility if the result is that the best schools are still prohibitively expensive for almost everyone, but allow those who can and do pay anyway to just pay less. *IF* you are concerned about the kids *most* affected by the bad apples and the troublesomely unmotivated, charter schools with some capacity to selectively-enroll (yes, I agree, they need to have at least *some* capacity to do so, AND that they have to be able to threaten expulsion as a real possibility) get you to the same place w/o subsidizing the "wealthy" in their decision to use Parer/Latin/whatever.

"Another gripe is the dumbing down of instruction to the detriment of the bright students. I note many schools want to eliminate honors classes and the attendant intellectual segregation"

Yeah, "tracking", as I think of it. Bad, bad idea to eliminate it, with, as I said, some meritorious basis. In any event, should be limited to core subjects, as elective classes in HS basically self-track by difficulty, and elem kids in the same school should mix in non-core classes (art, music, gym, to the extent they exist).

It's funny that ETHS is getting rid of it while there is a nascent push to *bring* such programs to Lake View HS in the city. Crap like that is why elected school boards are a bad idea--political pressure and minority-affinity organizations can overwhelm the best interests of the district as a whole.

Wendy, sometimes I think you're a well-intentioned if poorly informed liberal, then I read crap like this which leads me to believe you are not well-intentioned but without doubt are poorly informed:

"I would think certain conservative snobs would find a blog more to their liking, or perhaps they feed off the supposed envy they seem constantly in need of and seek to find here, hmm?"

First, this blog is very much to my liking because it gives me the chance to tell the vincibly ignorant (like you) that they are wrong and why and have a good time while doing it. Second, your Sunday supplement magazine-level pop psychology speculations about "conservative snobs" again demonstrate that you really need to think before you write.

Finally, I am not a conservative snob. I am merely a snob without qualification or limitation. JerryB can attest to that.

Zorn doesn't owe you a damn bit of explanation about where he sends his children to school or why he does it or why he doesn't send them to some other school. Mind your business, if you have any besides making asinine posts to this blog twenty times a day.

Sorry for the uncivil tone, everyone. But this boor insulting everyone and demanding explanations is getting on my last nerve.

What happens to UNO parents who don't bother to sign, are constantly intoxicated and can't sign, or flat out refuse to sign? Does UNO still accept those children with dysfunctional homes or do these students end up in neighborhood schools?

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.